Old 05-08-08, 04:36 AM
  #12  
Picchio Special
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lancaster County, PA
Posts: 5,045

Bikes: '39 Hobbs, '58 Marastoni, '73 Italian custom, '75 Wizard, '76 Wilier, '78 Tom Kellogg, '79 Colnago Super, '79 Sachs, '81 Masi Prestige, '82 Cuevas, '83 Picchio Special, '84 Murray-Serotta, '85 Trek 170, '89 Bianchi, '90 Bill Holland, '94 Grandis

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times in 10 Posts
Originally Posted by Road Fan
I don't think I agree with your second sentence here. I think more trail results in better low-speed stability, at least while climbing.
OK, but having researched this, that's not the consensus. Climbing is different from most low-speed riding. You're using the bars to help generate power by pulling on them, usually while trying to ride in a straight line, which is going to be unhelpful on a low-trail bike which will tend to be more input sensitive at the front.
Generally, low-trail should be more stable (i.e. steer straighter) at low speeds. With high-trail at low speeds, attitude changes (i.e. steering by weight shifting) will be easier, creating a "wobbling" sensation, i.e. less stable. The high-trail bike will be more stable at higher speeds - it will hold a line more easily. Note that your "low-trail" examples - at 50-55 - are in actuality pretty close to neutral.
Picchio Special is offline